Speaker 1: I remember a family living in my electorate. The mum
Speaker 1: had a gambling addiction and she'd been gambling all of
Speaker 1: the housekeeping money, unbeknown to her partner and little kids.
Speaker 1: And by the time I heard the story the electricity
Speaker 1: had been cut off. She'd run up an electricity bill
Speaker 1: of five thousand dollars.
Speaker 2: For more than a decade, Independent MP Andrew Wilkie has
Speaker 2: been talking about gambling addiction.
Speaker 1: The electricity company had given a three different opportunities to
Speaker 1: stick to a repayment plan, and ultimately the company said
Speaker 1: no more, that's it and cut the power off.
Speaker 2: His advocacy means he's become a lightning rod for people
Speaker 2: to share stories like this one.
Speaker 1: So when I met that family, there was mum, dad
Speaker 1: and two little children living in a house in winter
Speaker 1: in Hobart, no lights, no stove, no hot order, no heating.
Speaker 1: That's just one of thousands of stories I could recount.
Speaker 2: Now, as the government passes legislation aimed at reducing gambling hums,
Speaker 2: Wilkie is among an angry group of dissenters who say
Speaker 2: the bill is a national shame. I'm Ruby Jones and
Speaker 2: you're listening to seven AM today Andrew Wilke on the
Speaker 2: gaps in the government's gambling legislation and why he's referred
Speaker 2: it to the Anti Corruption Commission. It's Saturday, August twenty two. Andrew.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about the legislation the government passed after coming
Speaker 2: to an agreement with the coalition. One of the major
Speaker 2: concessions from Labor was a single service opt out register
Speaker 2: for people who don't want to be served gambling ads
Speaker 2: across different platforms. What do we know about how that
Speaker 2: will work?
Speaker 1: Well, we know very little other than that there will
Speaker 1: be a one stop shop where I see people can
Speaker 1: go to it opt out, and that instruction to opt
Speaker 1: out then is shared across all platforms. That's what I
Speaker 1: understand it to me, rather than me having to go
Speaker 1: to a dozen different platforms and opt out on everyone.
Speaker 1: If that's the government's intention, I think it is, that
Speaker 1: will be helpful. I'll give the government some credit. They
Speaker 1: have done more than any previous government. The question is
Speaker 1: are they doing enough? And that's an emphatic no. I
Speaker 1: remind listeners that this whole thing started over three years
Speaker 1: ago when a parliamentary report was produced into gambling harm
Speaker 1: in Australia. It was chaired by the late Peter Murphy.
Speaker 1: Hence it's called the Murphy Report. That report contains thirty
Speaker 1: one recommendations. It was, without a doubt, the best inquiry,
Speaker 1: best parliamentary inquiry this country has ever soon into gambling
Speaker 1: harm and what to do about it. But here we are,
Speaker 1: over three years later. The government has finally reacted to
Speaker 1: it with its legislation and what is going through the
Speaker 1: parliament addresses in part three of the thirty one recommendations
Speaker 1: in the Murphy Report.
Speaker 2: Right, can you get detail that for me a little more?
Speaker 2: Where the gaps in the legislation compared to what was
Speaker 2: recommended in Peter Murphy's report.
Speaker 1: All the thirty one recommendations, I'll single out three that
Speaker 1: I'll call it the flagship recommendations. These were the three
Speaker 1: big ones, right. One was that there be a phase
Speaker 1: out of gambling advertising, so after several years there would
Speaker 1: be a full ban, a full ban on gambling ads
Speaker 1: across all platforms, a free to wear streaming. Secondly, that
Speaker 1: there would be a complete ban on inducements. So inducements
Speaker 1: are things like giving someone some free credit. You know,
Speaker 1: I'll give you, We'll give you a hundred dollars credit
Speaker 1: if you side up or if you stick with us
Speaker 1: when you might be considering in closing your account. And
Speaker 1: the third thing was going to be an independent national
Speaker 1: gambling regulator because at the moment, all of the well
Speaker 1: almost all of the online gambling companies are regulated by
Speaker 1: the Northern Territory government through their part time and completely
Speaker 1: ineffective gambling regulator. So that were the three big recommendations.
Speaker 1: A full gambling ban, a complete ban on inducements, in
Speaker 1: the establishment of a national gambling regulator. The government's reforms
Speaker 1: do not address any of those in any way. They
Speaker 1: would say that, you know, they've got some changes around
Speaker 1: the margins with advertising, some changes around the margins with inducements,
Speaker 1: and they're prepared to trust the regulator in the Territory.
Speaker 1: But that's just nonsense. There's lots of little things they're
Speaker 1: doing that they really are tinkering around the edges.
Speaker 3: I've said before and some have been critical of it,
Speaker 3: but I stand by my view that there is nothing
Speaker 3: wrong with someone having a punt on a Saturday in
Speaker 3: the pub. What there is something wrong with is if
Speaker 3: people are addicted to anything.
Speaker 2: The Prime Minister has said that something is better than
Speaker 2: nothing and that he doesn't want Australia to be a
Speaker 2: nanny state stopping people from having a punt on the weekend.
Speaker 2: What do you make of that argument?
Speaker 1: The Prime Minister. But by the way, I quite like Albow.
Speaker 1: I think he's all right, except in this regard. I
Speaker 1: think he's hopeless. This talk about nanny state. I mean
Speaker 1: he's accused the Crossfitch in recent weeks of wanting to
Speaker 1: ban gambling. I mean, heaven no one's trying to ban gambling.
Speaker 1: Where does pushing for effective harm minimization measures. So there's
Speaker 1: this talk about the nanny state. You know, it's it's
Speaker 1: really trying to distract people. You know, hey, look over
Speaker 1: here or look over there. Interestingly, a number of us
Speaker 1: voted against the bill in the House of Representatives, which
Speaker 1: raised a few eyebrows. In fact, most of the Crossbench
Speaker 1: and two of the Opposition members, to their credit, voted
Speaker 1: against the bill for a range of reasons. But my
Speaker 1: reasoning was, if this bill becomes law, it will allow
Speaker 1: this government and future governments, whether they Labor or coalition,
Speaker 1: to say the job is done. Then I think that
Speaker 1: will be the end of reform for the foreseeable future.
Speaker 1: The government claims this legislation is just a stepping stone
Speaker 1: to further reform. But I don't believe them. You know
Speaker 1: they're going to They're going to say, you know, these
Speaker 1: are the most significant reforms in Australia's history. We're the
Speaker 1: government of fabulous people. We're letting you punt, but we're
Speaker 1: also protecting people, partly particularly need kids. And I don't
Speaker 1: think we'll see further before. Hence me, my cross Beach
Speaker 1: colleagues to keep chicking away on this one.
Speaker 2: Still to come. Has the gambling lobby had a hand
Speaker 2: in the government's bill, Andrew, I know you wrote to
Speaker 2: the National Anti Corruption Commission last week with concerns about
Speaker 2: improper influence on the government by individuals in the gambling industry.
Speaker 2: Tell me what exactly you're saying happened here.
Speaker 1: Look, I'm the first to acknowledge that governments have a
Speaker 1: right to accept donations, they have a right to be lobbied.
Speaker 1: Lobbyists have a right to lobby the government, and governments
Speaker 1: have every right to make their own policy decisions and
Speaker 1: bring legislation to the Parliament. My concern is, though there
Speaker 1: must be a point at which that patronage crosses a lot.
Speaker 1: It and becomes improper conduct. And that's the essence of
Speaker 1: my concern here and why I've referred individuals in the
Speaker 1: government and also in the gambling industry. I've referred them
Speaker 1: not by name, that's for the aed Coruption Commission to
Speaker 1: work out, but I've referred them generally to the commission
Speaker 1: because because I think they have crossed the line that
Speaker 1: people in the individuals in the private sector, through donations, gifts, hospitality,
Speaker 1: personal relationships, that they have improperly influenced individuals in the government,
Speaker 1: and those individuals have in fact abused their office by
Speaker 1: buckling to that influence.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and tell me a little more what you mean
Speaker 2: by that, by the line that's been crossed. I mean,
Speaker 2: what is that line to you? And why do you
Speaker 2: think that it's been walked over?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Well, I think the gambling gambling issue is really
Speaker 1: interesting and it might be unique in that there is
Speaker 1: so much research steering a government towards a certain policy position.
Speaker 1: There is so much public pressure pushing a government to
Speaker 1: a certain position. You know, the public interest is so
Speaker 1: clearly served by the government adopting a certain position.
Speaker 4: The Albanezi government has failed Australians when it comes to
Speaker 4: banning gambling advertising. A thousand days ago, you were given
Speaker 4: the blueprint a multi.
Speaker 1: Will the government ban be true to the Murphy Report
Speaker 1: and ban all inducements in gambling and gambling advertising to
Speaker 1: protect us straining. The question will be whether the Prime
Speaker 1: Minister and Angus Taylor.
Speaker 2: Have the courage to do the right thing here man up.
Speaker 1: And then for the government in this case to go
Speaker 1: completely in the opposite direction. I think that has crossed
Speaker 1: the line. I can't think of any other issue in
Speaker 1: the sixteen years of it in Parliament where that research,
Speaker 1: the public interest in public opinion is so overwhelmingly, so
Speaker 1: strongly in one direction, and the government has so completely
Speaker 1: and utterly ignored it. It is just so it odds.
Speaker 1: I think a line has been crossed. And when you
Speaker 1: consider what we do know about patronage, we know that
Speaker 1: over four years, the gambling industry has donated about five
Speaker 1: million dollars to the Labor Party. Over that same period,
Speaker 1: the gambling industry has donated about four and a half
Speaker 1: million dollars to the coalition parties. You can't tell me
Speaker 1: that when an industry donates almost ten million dollars, you
Speaker 1: can't tell me that's supporting someone that's buying someone. No
Speaker 1: one hands over that enormous amount of money without expecting
Speaker 1: a return on that investment.
Speaker 3: Will continue to promote the legislation is before the Parliament
Speaker 3: today hasn't been influenced from certainly my position has not
Speaker 3: been influenced in the way that as suggested. I'm sure
Speaker 3: of all of the members on this side, and don't.
Speaker 1: You said that.
Speaker 2: Plenty of people have told you that the Knack won't investigate,
Speaker 2: and I think part of that is around I mean,
Speaker 2: we know that the Knack can't investigate the quote unquote government.
Speaker 2: It needs a specific remit, it needs individual politicians or
Speaker 2: staff to look into as part of a referral. So
Speaker 2: what is it that you're actually asking the Knack to
Speaker 2: look into.
Speaker 1: Well, I am asking them to investigate whether individuals in
Speaker 1: the private sector have unduly influenced individuals in the government,
Speaker 1: and whether those individuals in the government have in fact
Speaker 1: abused their office. I say individuals, because you've made the
Speaker 1: point already, Reuby, that that can't investigate a government, it
Speaker 1: can investigate individuals. That's why I've worded my referral in
Speaker 1: the way done. I think I think the people who
Speaker 1: looked at me and said, I mate, you're very very
Speaker 1: optimistic here. You're dreaming that that reflects this, this mindset
Speaker 1: that this is okay, that the government ultimately could do
Speaker 1: whatever it wants, this mindset that so long as donations
Speaker 1: are declared, so long as hospitality is declared, it's okay.
Speaker 1: And I say, it's only okay to a point.
Speaker 2: And in amongst all of the politics and the policy,
Speaker 2: it can be easy to lose sight of the human
Speaker 2: impact of all of this. We heard from former role
Speaker 2: player Luke Bateman earlier this month about his experience.
Speaker 5: I was stealing money from my own mother to fund
Speaker 5: my gamming addiction, and that would be because I would lose.
Speaker 5: I would have no money, and then I would be
Speaker 5: offered an inducement and I'd say, oh, well, I need
Speaker 5: to I need to get some money because I've got
Speaker 5: a thousand dollars worth of bonus BET's waiting for me.
Speaker 5: And then I would steal money from home.
Speaker 2: What did you think of his testimony.
Speaker 1: I thought it was compelled and it was a shame
Speaker 1: that some political operatives did their best to discredit him afterwards.
Speaker 1: I thought that was very compelling and what I liked
Speaker 1: about his testimony is he brought us back to the
Speaker 1: human face of this.
Speaker 5: They're zero welfare checks done whatsoever. And in the opposite,
Speaker 5: not only do they not check on welfare, they encourage
Speaker 5: you to lose more when they can clearly see that
Speaker 5: your betting activity is incredibly harmful instructive.
Speaker 1: Too much of this issue became a political debate. It
Speaker 1: was all about numbers and stats and whether it be
Speaker 1: the amount of money donated to political parties or the
Speaker 1: number of estimated number of people with gave the addictions.
Speaker 1: So I certainly did my best to try and bring
Speaker 1: it back to the human side of this. I spoke
Speaker 1: you to countless people either who have an addiction or
Speaker 1: recovered from an addiction, or their mumbers, or their dads,
Speaker 1: or their brothers, or the sisters, sons or their daughters
Speaker 1: that were colleague, their friends. I've spoken to so many people,
Speaker 1: and I've heard so many stories, and every one of
Speaker 1: those stories is an intensely human story. And of course
Speaker 1: the most tragic part of the human side of this
Speaker 1: is the suicides. The research has tell me that at
Speaker 1: least four hundred Australians are suiciding every year on account
Speaker 1: of the gambling addiction, which means in the three years
Speaker 1: since the Murphy Report was handed to the government, over
Speaker 1: a thousand Australians have suicided. And by the way, gamblers
Speaker 1: had lost in Australia, not gambled, but lost over one
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollars since that report was handed to the government.
Speaker 1: Research out of Victoria several years ago found that gambling
Speaker 1: addiction is the second most prevalent cause of crime in
Speaker 1: that state after drug addiction. So then you've got all
Speaker 1: the victims of crime who have had money sold them
Speaker 1: from them, Ruby, I could go on longer than this,
Speaker 1: longer than all the podcasts you'll do on the rest
Speaker 1: of your life. I record just telling you the stories.
Speaker 1: So when I criticize the government with the sport of
Speaker 1: the opposition, so how they've dealt with gambling reform, one
Speaker 1: of the things I single out is their lack of humanity,
Speaker 1: because if you care about humanity, you wouldn't stop at
Speaker 1: what went through the house to representatives.
Speaker 2: Well, Andrew, thank you so much for speaking with me.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ruby, it's a pleasure.
Speaker 2: And if this story has raised any issues for you,
Speaker 2: help is available through Lifeline. On thirteen eleven, fourteen.
Speaker 6: Seven Am was a daily show from Solstice Media. It's
Speaker 6: made by Anigus Bastow, Chris Dane Gate, Crystal Color, Renei Auckland,
Speaker 6: Ruby Jones, Travis Evans, Zoltenfe Jr. And me Daniel James.
Speaker 6: Our theme music is by Ned Beckley and Josh Hogan
Speaker 6: of Envelope Porteo. And if you'd like to support seven
Speaker 6: Am in bringing you the news independently and without fear
Speaker 6: or favor, please follow the show on your chosen podcast
Speaker 6: platform and on our social media accounts on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube,
Speaker 6: and LinkedIn. Have a great weekend.